a) a decision has been made that the entire program is sound and its implementation is the next step, or
b) a decision has been reached that the overall program is sound and some portion(s) of the program
(a) requires further information.
(b) the information required is identified — sources for the information are identified — the cost of securing such information is adequately offset by the expected value of such information (cost–benefit analysis).
(c) the assignment to secure the information is made and the next meeting scheduled.
c) (3) O1 is judged unsound and Om has again been validated. Assignments to develop alternatives to O1 in achieving Om are made (including feedback to arrange a next meeting at which O2 , O3 ,……On will be presented as ways of achieving Om ).
It will be very helpful in all procedures if all information relevant to the decision making process is available or translatable into all representation systems (verbally, pictorially on graphs and flip charts, and in a way that is relatable to feelings).
5. The programmer should then assess the present state capabilities of each of the participants in the decision making process. Specifically, the programmer should identify what strategy is functioning for the task he is trying to accomplish. This can be accomplished:
a) from the observations the programmer has made of their interactions before he began his interventions.
b) by eliciting an appropriate strategy from the individual's personal history (e.g., "Think of a time that you were able to make a good decision that involved a number of complex issues"). Let's say that the programmer has chosen option (1) and observed the interactions of the executives as they initially attempted to make the decision. From his observations he has been able to determine the following: Each circle represents one of the people involved in the process. Each is inputting the external visual and auditory signals of the others. The strategy sequence nearest them indicates the strategy that has been observed in them by the programmer. PERSON A has been able to take the visual and auditory input (Ve /Ae) from the others and see at least fifteen new possibilities (Vc) that he feels (Ki) would increase the revenue of the corporation, and has described these images to the others (Aed). PERSON B, when he has gotten person A's auditory output, has had a polarity response to it and accessed remembered images (Vr) of situations similar to those that A is proposing where something has gone wrong. He finds fault with all of A's proposals and has strong negative feelings (Ki-) about what he sees as a possible disaster. He expresses these feelings to A in a hostile tone of voice (Aet) which has precipitated a number of arguments between he and A. PERSON C feels that an expansion is necessary (Ki) but does not have any clear ideas on what specifically needs to be done, but she keeps telling herself (Aid) that she'll know it when she hears it. PERSON D, through remembering a number of ideas she's heard and picked up, (Ar), is able to modify the faults that that B has found in A's proposals so that it looks (Ve) as though they may work. PERSON E has been able to figure out how to possibly implement some of both A's ideas and D's revisions by asking himself if it could be done (Aid), beginning to sense himself going through the motions (Ki) and then remembering ways similar things were done in the past (Vr). From the information he has gathered the programmer can determine that A's strategy tends to be specialized for creativity but is not always practical. B has an effective critical strategy good for testing ideas for possible faults but tends to lack the creativity needed to operate to modify ideas to make them workable. C's strategy is without a visual component and is not particularly useful in terms of creativity. She will make a decision on the basis of her feelings. D has a good strategy for modifying input and making it more practical. D also possesses some creativity. E has a good strategy for implementation but lacks the ability to be creative or to modify.
6. The programmer's task now is to sequence the interactions of these five people into the most effective order for obtaining the outcome. He may choose to either:
a) spend time developing and designing more effective and versatile strategies for each of the participants, installing them as added resources, or
b) sequence the existing strategies in the most useful order given the existing outcomes of the strategies. This would involve organizing the interaction so that the output of one individual's strategy flowed easily and usefully as input to the strategy of another — to set up a system in which each of their strategies is maximally utilized for what it does well.
Let's say, for the purpose of this example, that the programmer chooses option (2). He has already made a determination of the special abilities and deficiencies of the strategies the persons involved. The task now is to
(a) Number each participant and schedule them to present their ideas for a specified time (e.g. five minutes). Each is to take the output of the one that has come before them and to process it through his or her strategy. Each must let the others talk without interruption.
The trick, of course, will be to find the the sequence that best fits the natural resources of the participants. You may, for example, want to design your sequence such that A starts with his creativity strategy. Then you schedule B to critique A's suggestions. Then you schedule D to modify the faults that B found and make A's proposals useful again. Then you schedule E to figure out ways to implement the modified proposals. And finally you schedule C to feel everything out and decide if the proposals and implementation procedures are appropriate.
You are assigning them to do what they have done before anyway. Their problem has been, however, that their sequencing was somewhat random and, because of conflicts, nothing was ever really allowed to develop. They did not have a framework structured to take full advantage of their abilities. By scheduling them you reframe the situation so that B is no longer "insulting" A by finding fault, but carrying out a necessary function. Each person's strategy is framed as a resource (which indeed it is) and each is respected for his or her skill. Person A generates ideas specifically so that B may test them and find where they need to be modified and made even better. The time becomes maximally utilized and each time block is used for one function at a time. One major difficulty with many group decision making processes is that the people jump from considering and defining present state to desired state to problem state to resources, and often the content gets jumbled. One important function of scheduling is that when you are considering a desired state you stick with desired state until it has been specified in detail. These details may later be modified on the basis of other information — but the process of initially defining it is not interrupted.
(b) The programmer must also control for adverse nonverbal or interpersonal interactions, whether they are intentional on the part of the participants or not. Sometimes one member of the group will use a certain tonality, for instance, that triggers negative feelings in another, even though the person using the tonality is merely excited and does not mean to intimidate. If the programmer observes such a response s/he can take steps to neutralize that tonal anchor and repeat what she or he has just said over again.
By making such an intervention, the programmer can assist the executives into each contributing their strategy as a part of a larger decision making strategy, so that the overall decision they make together is better then any could have made alone.